The United States as we know it today is a far cry from the vision the Founding Fathers had in mind at the end of the 18th century. Upon declaring independence from the British Empire America was to become a nation of free people with a minimal government whose purpose was to protect violations of person or property.
When Thomas Jefferson so eloquently penned America’s declaration that it was independent from England he also defined how our new country would proceed from that day forward.
“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” Jefferson wrote.
However, today the United States more closely resembles the divine right of kings of old where an elite bureaucracy imposes its will as it sees fit.
John Calhoun foresaw the gradual expansion of federal power at the cost of individual liberty. Calhoun, mainly noted by historians today as a “proponent” of slavery, was a brilliant orator, writer, and advocate of free trade, state’s rights, and limited government in a political career that lasted over 35 years. Calhoun wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in 1828 to protest punitive tariffs to the southern states.
This document put the South on a path that would eventually lead to the Civil War (or “The War to Prevent Southern Independence” as historian Thomas DiLorenzo aptly calls it). In the aftermath of the war the expansion of federal power was permanent with the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, particularly the 14th amendment with its infamous “due process” and “equal protection” clauses that certainly had meritorious intentions by establishing equal rights for blacks.
Unfortunately the vague wording of the 14th amendment led to an unprecedented expansion of federal authority into what were once private matters. Supreme Court cases that have attempted to define these clauses over the years have established the federal government as a “benevolent overseer” of individual rights. How far we have come since Jefferson insisted the government derived its power to govern from the will of the people. Now the government defines the rights of the people.
Of course progressive policies have further infringed upon individual liberty since the dawn of the 20th century and culminating with President Obama and the 111th Congress who passed a law requiring that individuals purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, in the name of “healthcare reform.” I believe it’s a fair bet that the constitutionality of this law will be upheld, somehow, under the implications of the Equal Protections Clause but we’ll see.
The rise of neo-conservatism can also be blamed for the infringement of individual liberty by creating the massive military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the public about upon leaving office in 1961.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Despite Eisenhower’s plea the public remained silent as spending in the name of national defense expanded exponentially over the next three decades. The public’s money has been used to create the most powerful military in the world in order to combat the specter of Communism at the behest of unelected leaders from the federal government who create foreign policy on the behalf of the public.
Arguably the Cold War needed to be won but the point is the American public had no say in the creation of this massive military might. It was created and the public accepted it largely because of an irrational fear that Communists were infiltrating American society – a lie famously perpetuated by Senator McCarthy.
Neocons forced the will of the federal government abroad without the consent of the people. As a result we have a federal government today that acts independently, or in spite of, the people. Conservatives love to say they adhere to the Constitution and respect the freedom of the people while getting involved in all sorts of foreign matters, such as the Vietnam conflict that expanded into Laos and Cambodia at an enormous cost of blood and dollars and infringement upon the liberty of others.
So today we are left with a two-party system with one side ignoring the Constitution be creating a nanny state in the name of “caring for others” and other emotional causes while on the other we have a group that does nothing to repeal constitutional infractions of the past and does its own damage to liberty by getting involved in foreign conflicts without the public’s consent.
Isn’t it time we get back to Jefferson’s vision? The shortcomings of our country’s founding, namely the reprehensible establishment of slavery as acceptable, have been forever abolished. Also, the Cold War is over so there isn’t a need for massive foreign expeditions that cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Technology today is getting to the point where not as many human soldiers have to risk their lives to defend the United States – we have flying drones, mechanized infantry, even a missile defense system.
It is time we allow the American people to prosper again. We can handle the responsibility.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Marx never understood capitalism
There are many misconceptions in the theories of Karl Marx – too many to cover in a single article. I’d like to mention one of them today – the fact that Marx never understood capitalism when he came up with his economic theories.
Marx asserted that the capitalist exploits workers because the worker is never paid the full value of goods produced. Capitalism allows the business-owner to claim a profit on goods sold minus the costs of labor, etc. Marx viewed this as exploitation of the working class (the proletariat) who isn’t paid the full value of labor put forth to produce goods sold on the market.
Marx believed the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, kept the working class perpetually, from generation to generation, from improving their lot in life. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is by birthright the landowner and business owner whose status alone keeps the working class from ever entering entrepreneurship.
This is obviously untrue. In fact, it is the state that acts to prevent totally free markets (true capitalism) from taking place. It is the government that seizes property as it sees fit to benefit the governors at the expense of the governed.
What Marx understood to be capitalism was essentially a mercantilist society. In mercantilism society is rigidly structured in a caste system where people have no upward mobility. This is easily observable in colonial Britain where the ruling class slapped oppressive rules on trade that benefitted themselves, but prevented peasants from ever owning land or starting a business for themselves.
The East India Company could serve as a model for Marx’s bourgeoisie ruling class. The East India Company was granted a Royal Charter granting them monopolistic rights to trade cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpeter, tea, and opium. This offshoot of the British royal family became so powerful that it ruled large swaths of India following the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
No one outside the East India Company could enjoy the enormous trade benefits and resulting riches. One had to be born into a special caste to participate. There was no hope for an Indian peasant to participate fully in the fruits of his labor and the resources of his country.
It was mercantilism that classic liberal Adam Smith rebelled against and what Karl Marx should have decried instead of capitalism. Mercantilist forces forced their will on colonies spread throughout the world, including the American colonies. It was oppressive mercantilist policies that forced revolutionaries in America to revolt against their oppressors.
In a capitalist society there are no rigid classes. In a freely competitive society, with few regulatory controls or government interference, movement between classes is extremely mobile. Poor men become rich men (the great industrialists of the late 19th century are an excellent example) and rich men become poor men (such as those who invested foolishly during the dot.com bust).
Moreover, a worker is free to choose who he works for and understands that he will be paid a wage. The entrepreneur, on the other hand, understands that he will be able to sell his goods on the market after they are produced for a profit. The smart entrepreneur then reinvests his profits in his business so it will grow.
Capitalism has benefitted American society as a whole and has not resulted in the “unavoidable” class wars that Marx assumed were inevitable. In fact it was the mercantilist society that Americans and other oppressed societies around the world rebelled against.
If only Marx could have corrected his error think of the millions of lives and years of turmoil that could have been saved. Of course the resulting work would have been something similar to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
Marx asserted that the capitalist exploits workers because the worker is never paid the full value of goods produced. Capitalism allows the business-owner to claim a profit on goods sold minus the costs of labor, etc. Marx viewed this as exploitation of the working class (the proletariat) who isn’t paid the full value of labor put forth to produce goods sold on the market.
Marx believed the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, kept the working class perpetually, from generation to generation, from improving their lot in life. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is by birthright the landowner and business owner whose status alone keeps the working class from ever entering entrepreneurship.
This is obviously untrue. In fact, it is the state that acts to prevent totally free markets (true capitalism) from taking place. It is the government that seizes property as it sees fit to benefit the governors at the expense of the governed.
What Marx understood to be capitalism was essentially a mercantilist society. In mercantilism society is rigidly structured in a caste system where people have no upward mobility. This is easily observable in colonial Britain where the ruling class slapped oppressive rules on trade that benefitted themselves, but prevented peasants from ever owning land or starting a business for themselves.
The East India Company could serve as a model for Marx’s bourgeoisie ruling class. The East India Company was granted a Royal Charter granting them monopolistic rights to trade cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpeter, tea, and opium. This offshoot of the British royal family became so powerful that it ruled large swaths of India following the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
No one outside the East India Company could enjoy the enormous trade benefits and resulting riches. One had to be born into a special caste to participate. There was no hope for an Indian peasant to participate fully in the fruits of his labor and the resources of his country.
It was mercantilism that classic liberal Adam Smith rebelled against and what Karl Marx should have decried instead of capitalism. Mercantilist forces forced their will on colonies spread throughout the world, including the American colonies. It was oppressive mercantilist policies that forced revolutionaries in America to revolt against their oppressors.
In a capitalist society there are no rigid classes. In a freely competitive society, with few regulatory controls or government interference, movement between classes is extremely mobile. Poor men become rich men (the great industrialists of the late 19th century are an excellent example) and rich men become poor men (such as those who invested foolishly during the dot.com bust).
Moreover, a worker is free to choose who he works for and understands that he will be paid a wage. The entrepreneur, on the other hand, understands that he will be able to sell his goods on the market after they are produced for a profit. The smart entrepreneur then reinvests his profits in his business so it will grow.
Capitalism has benefitted American society as a whole and has not resulted in the “unavoidable” class wars that Marx assumed were inevitable. In fact it was the mercantilist society that Americans and other oppressed societies around the world rebelled against.
If only Marx could have corrected his error think of the millions of lives and years of turmoil that could have been saved. Of course the resulting work would have been something similar to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
Marx never understood capitalism
There are many misconceptions in the theories of Karl Marx – too many to cover in a single article. I’d like to mention one of them today – the fact that Marx never understood capitalism when he came up with his economic theories.
Marx asserted that the capitalist exploits workers because the worker is never paid the full value of goods produced. Capitalism allows the business-owner to claim a profit on goods sold minus the costs of labor, etc. Marx viewed this as exploitation of the working class (the proletariat) who isn’t paid the full value of labor put forth to produce goods sold on the market.
Marx believed the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, kept the working class perpetually, from generation to generation, from improving their lot in life. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is by birthright the landowner and business owner whose status alone keeps the working class from ever entering entrepreneurship.
This is obviously untrue. In fact, it is the state that acts to prevent totally free markets (true capitalism) from taking place. It is the government that seizes property as it sees fit to benefit the governors at the expense of the governed.
What Marx understood to be capitalism was essentially a mercantilist society. In mercantilism society is rigidly structured in a caste system where people have no upward mobility. This is easily observable in colonial Britain where the ruling class slapped oppressive rules on trade that benefitted themselves, but prevented peasants from ever owning land or starting a business for themselves.
The East India Company could serve as a model for Marx’s bourgeoisie ruling class. The East India Company was granted a Royal Charter granting them monopolistic rights to trade cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpeter, tea, and opium. This offshoot of the British royal family became so powerful that it ruled large swaths of India following the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
No one outside the East India Company could enjoy the enormous trade benefits and resulting riches. One had to be born into a special caste to participate. There was no hope for an Indian peasant to participate fully in the fruits of his labor and the resources of his country.
It was mercantilism that classic liberal Adam Smith rebelled against and what Karl Marx should have decried instead of capitalism. Mercantilist forces forced their will on colonies spread throughout the world, including the American colonies. It was oppressive mercantilist policies that forced revolutionaries in America to revolt against their oppressors.
In a capitalist society there are no rigid classes. In a freely competitive society, with few regulatory controls or government interference, movement between classes is extremely mobile. Poor men become rich men (the great industrialists of the late 19th century are an excellent example) and rich men become poor men (such as those who invested foolishly during the dot.com bust).
Moreover, a worker is free to choose who he works for and understands that he will be paid a wage. The entrepreneur, on the other hand, understands that he will be able to sell his goods on the market after they are produced for a profit. The smart entrepreneur then reinvests his profits in his business so it will grow.
Capitalism has benefited American society as a whole and has not resulted in the “unavoidable” class wars that Marx assumed were inevitable. In fact it was the mercantilist society that Americans and other oppressed societies around the world rebelled against.
If only Marx could have corrected his error think of the millions of lives and years of turmoil that could have been saved. Of course the resulting work would have been something similar to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
Marx asserted that the capitalist exploits workers because the worker is never paid the full value of goods produced. Capitalism allows the business-owner to claim a profit on goods sold minus the costs of labor, etc. Marx viewed this as exploitation of the working class (the proletariat) who isn’t paid the full value of labor put forth to produce goods sold on the market.
Marx believed the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, kept the working class perpetually, from generation to generation, from improving their lot in life. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is by birthright the landowner and business owner whose status alone keeps the working class from ever entering entrepreneurship.
This is obviously untrue. In fact, it is the state that acts to prevent totally free markets (true capitalism) from taking place. It is the government that seizes property as it sees fit to benefit the governors at the expense of the governed.
What Marx understood to be capitalism was essentially a mercantilist society. In mercantilism society is rigidly structured in a caste system where people have no upward mobility. This is easily observable in colonial Britain where the ruling class slapped oppressive rules on trade that benefitted themselves, but prevented peasants from ever owning land or starting a business for themselves.
The East India Company could serve as a model for Marx’s bourgeoisie ruling class. The East India Company was granted a Royal Charter granting them monopolistic rights to trade cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpeter, tea, and opium. This offshoot of the British royal family became so powerful that it ruled large swaths of India following the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
No one outside the East India Company could enjoy the enormous trade benefits and resulting riches. One had to be born into a special caste to participate. There was no hope for an Indian peasant to participate fully in the fruits of his labor and the resources of his country.
It was mercantilism that classic liberal Adam Smith rebelled against and what Karl Marx should have decried instead of capitalism. Mercantilist forces forced their will on colonies spread throughout the world, including the American colonies. It was oppressive mercantilist policies that forced revolutionaries in America to revolt against their oppressors.
In a capitalist society there are no rigid classes. In a freely competitive society, with few regulatory controls or government interference, movement between classes is extremely mobile. Poor men become rich men (the great industrialists of the late 19th century are an excellent example) and rich men become poor men (such as those who invested foolishly during the dot.com bust).
Moreover, a worker is free to choose who he works for and understands that he will be paid a wage. The entrepreneur, on the other hand, understands that he will be able to sell his goods on the market after they are produced for a profit. The smart entrepreneur then reinvests his profits in his business so it will grow.
Capitalism has benefited American society as a whole and has not resulted in the “unavoidable” class wars that Marx assumed were inevitable. In fact it was the mercantilist society that Americans and other oppressed societies around the world rebelled against.
If only Marx could have corrected his error think of the millions of lives and years of turmoil that could have been saved. Of course the resulting work would have been something similar to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
